Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
Meade
P.S. There's nothing wrong with teaching YOURSELF how to drive a stick ...
i know very little about the mechanics of a car, and the review really didn't go into detail, so it left me stumped. i was hoping some of the more knowledgeable people here could shed some light on this. thanks.
(i've read so many reviews over the months that i honestly don't recall where i read it.)
I think Motor Trend said it best, "This car is dialed in!" (oh and don't tell, we can fit out two child seats in the back!)
Happy Shopping!
This is the mid-size bread-and-butter niche so why would you expect anything new? New technologies start higher up the car food chain and slowly trickle down over the generations.
Stuff you've got now that you could never get on a midsize Camcord, Altima or Mazda 20k sedan 10 years ago:
4 port ABS
Electronic Brake Distribution
Emergency Braking Assist
Speed sensitive power steering
Auto up and down power windows
Side curtain airbags
5 speed automatic trannies
200+ HP V6s
16 or even 17 inch rims
Traction control
Dual zone auto climate control
6 disc in dash CD changers
stability control (camry, passat and maxima have this)
Automatic sun shades
Navigation systems
Voice controls
Of course there are tons of technologies more advanced now but they're on the higher end cars. The next generation or later versions of midsizes will see other fun doodads...
Active suspensions
6 speed autos
SMGs/CVTs
Hybrids
Cylinder deactivation
Park distance control
Infrared/radar cruise control
I wanna test drive so I can see what all this talk is about, nothing more. Well, the $35 certificate kinda sweetens the deal too..
Paul you drive a Jetta, is it a 1.8T?
I tested the "6i" manual and it was very sluggish below 3,000 rpm. I just tested an Accord LX coupe manual and the difference was amazing below 3,500 rev's, it actually accelerated from those lower rev's and sang freely to redline. This 2.3 liter Honda motor is stronger throughout it's range where-as the "6i" 2.3 is strong above 3,500 revs. The "6i" sounds much better, the dual exhausts are very nice. Way to go Mazda! I currently drive a '00 Mitsu Eclipse 2.4 liter four with manual also with good low-end but a less than efficient high-end range. I will also test drive a Jetta GL 1.8t this week to feel it's potential to pull at low-rpm off the line. I feel folks are better served by low end torque than high reving horsepower in a car wieghing 3,000 lbs. The "6i" VVT comes on strong but it came after breaking the speed limit. I want my fun zone where it's legal without redlining constantly. This all sounds like a V6 would better serve me. Alas that would put me over the $20,000 MSRP which is the limit in my search. I live in a mountainous area and low-end is essential when pulling 3,000 lbs. up away from a stop. It's also true that driving mountain roads with the engine pulling at high-revs very rewarding.
Conundrum...
I know maybe I should look toward the Mazda 3 when it arrives with the "6i" 2.3 liter motor. It should be lighter thus enabling the car to be lighter on it's feet. Oh blast that didn't work when the Sentra just got the 2.5 liter with 165 Hp. Guess I'll just have to see for myself when it's finally at the dealer.
Ya see it's all this weight to horsepower ratio. Yea let's get a physicist in our discussion of power, and spoilers, and...
In other words, don't believe everything that is posted on the internet!!
Makers should just not sell anything to rental companies anymore, with all the bad PR.
Well I feel that way too, but I discovered the hardway through the years that it does make a difference. When I take roadtrips, if my car is used I'm the only driver because only one of my female friends can drive a stick. Ever drive 1400 miles over 3 days? Lots of fun when the passenger gets to sleep, fiddle with the radio and in general kick it while you shift and rumble forward a few feet in bumper-to-bumper traffic.
Also in an emergency it comes in quite handy to own a car anyone can drive. I broke my collarbone one night (the same night I mentioned to my then friend that I need to teach her to drive stick "just in case."). As luck would have it, just in case happened that very night and she had to drive me 15 miles to the hospital in my manual-equipped car. We made it but not before she was totally frazzled by the whole experience.
I love manuals, but they've put undo stress on my life through the years and it's all related to non-manual drivers.
I still haven't figured out how they made this car feel so much NOT like other FWD cars.
Also - don't feel bad or guilty about not wanting a stick shift. Neither do I. My husband had a manual transmission Nissan truck that I drove from time to time. I'm not even in a big city, and it would drive me crazy in our relatively little "bumper-to-bumper" traffic, etc. Some people swear by manuals (my friend won't buy anything BUT a stick shift car), and some people don't care and prefer the auto. I'm not sure why those who love the MT love it so much, just seems like a PITA to me. And I'm not someone who "races" anyway, so all the talk about sticks going faster or whatever they're supposed to do (i.e. race cars) doesn't really matter to me either. Buy what you want - if that's an auto, then so be it.
Well, I drove 2200 miles in 4 days once(Calif to Georgia), then 4500 in under a week (Fort Benning, GA to Fort Richardson, Alaska).
I am the driver in the family. I can count on one hand the number of times my wife has driven me anywhere. She hates to drive, automatic or not.
Manual transmissions have only caused me trouble twice. Once was in an 84 Scirocco when the clutch cable failed (drove home 10 miles in 3rd gear through a stop sign or two - good thing it was a sunday) and the other was a Fiat Marea rental that had the worst clutch engagement I have ever experienced.
So when I balance out the increased control and more fun while driving 99% of the time with the potential for trouble 1% of the time, I will take a manual every time.
I will write up a little comparo between the two cars after I drive the 6. The comparo is not meant to start a fighting match, it's meant to show how I feel the 2 cars differ, mainly because I own one of them. Gonna try Thuursday to drive a 6, but gotta see if I have the time or not.
Dude, we live in the same area! I drive the beltway every day. Modern clutches are so easy, it's absolutely painless- in fact, it's more of a joy to have something to play with in traffic- and you get better mileage. But rather than argue the virtues of manuals, can others here at least agree- the '6, more so than most cars, is much better with a manual, because it needs to be revved and it needs to connect with you.
Guess I'm too young with only 18 years driving experience, but I can't recall a clutch ever being difficult.
it's absolutely painless
wow, talk about subjective. Drive through LA on the 405 from stem to stern one Friday afternoon to evening and I'd bet you'd be singing a different tune. I know I'm plain miserable by the time I hit Long Beach and there's still another 30+ miles to go before the Getty.
There's an old joke about how you could tell a Porsche driver in LA...his left leg is twice as big as his right. Of course that was before the Tiptronic.
in fact, it's more of a joy to have something to play with in traffic
Whoa...won't touch the entendre there. Regardless, I prefer to read in traffic...which I do anyway with my stick shift.
and you get better mileage
At this point it's a 1 mpg difference in most new cars. I'd bet Vocus actually gets better MPGs with his 1.8T tiptronic than I do with my 1.8T manual (23 MPG). If 1 mpg means that much to you maybe a Prius or Civic Hybrid is more in order.
What do you mean? (I'm having a "duh" moment)
If you like the car, then it IS connecting with you, right? By "needs to be revved" I assume you mean that in jest as in "it's a sporty car so it begs to be revved", not that it actually NEEDS to be revved because it runs better mechanically? If you like the auto, then it'll "connect" just as much, right? (bear with me.... just trying to determine if the MT actually RUNS better, etc. than the AT, as I'll be getting the AT.)
I mean, the engine needs to be revved a little to generate torque. The engine pulls in the mid and upper range, and has a sweet sound to add to the driving thrill (yes RedKey1, it has dual exhausts on the base model). This is why Edmund's had to torque-brake to acheive their still slow 8 second 0-60 time with the V6. With a manual, this isn't necessary, and the effect would only be amplified by the 4cyl auto combination, which produces less torque and has higher, less aggressive gearing. Launching from 2 or 3k rpm with the 4cyl manual is pretty immediate, and adds greatly to this car's driving experience.
By connecting with you, I mean one of the car's greatest attributes is its driver feedback. It communicates steering, traction, road feel, etc, and driving a manual transmission is a way to capitalize on this feedback. It's easier to manipulate the car with a manual in response to the feedback the car gives.
For most people, none of this matters. That's why it keeps being repeated here- some people just don't get it, or even understand what "it" is.
People who enjoy shifting don't understand people who refuse to drive a stick...and the same applies the otherway. The difference is the stick people are out numbered by the auto people by so much that its almost a non-issue.
Basically, the 6i is the same car as the 6s in equipment, with the 6s getting alloys, power driver's seat, auto climate control, ABS/TC, and perimeter alarm, in addition to the V6. Which transmission you choose makes a difference in how you drive.
A 5-speed MT gives the driver direct control over the available torque and power band without the slipage one gets with an auto transmission. If shifted at the right time, with judicious use of the clutch, the 5-speed can be just as smooth as an auto tranny. Judicious means smooth co-ordination.
Manual transmissions were originally used to get the most out of low HP 4-cylinder engines.
My first manual car was a Morris Minor with a 37hp engine. Too small to handle an auto-tranny, which wasn't available anyhow.
A manual transmission is cheaper to repair and gives better fuel economy, again, due to no slipage as in an auto.
Manual equiped cars are more fun to drive because of direct control and the ability to hold a selected gear longer. Being in control all the time means having to stay on top of what is happening around you and ahead of you. You have to be Alert!
New manual drivers usually forget to put the clutch in and frequently stall the engine. They also tend to slip the clutch, which is a bad idea, sliping the clutch can set it on fire.
fowler3
The other glitch Audi Fox's had was the driver's seat. The doors weren't as wide as on today's cars. You had to slide the seat back to get in and pull it up to driving position. Then slide it back to get out.
Clutches wear out due to constant use. Somebody here said they now cost $500 on Accords.
fowler3
I would add .."in this country." There are havens of the "righteous" around the world. ;-)
I think most manual drivers have driven automatics, but I don't think the majority of automatic users have driven manuals. So when a majority of a market expresses a preference for the automatic, I have to wonder how many even know how to drive/have driven a manual and thus are even making a real choice.
Bringing it back on topic....
The Mazda 6 is a car that begs for a manual. The numbers show this well. It's the raison d'etre for this car. I guess Rich is right. The two camps cannot understand each other. I can't see how someone would want the sporty handling of the 6 without the zip that the manny tranny provides. I mean, if you can give up the manny tranny, then it is only another small step to move over to the Accord or Camry.
Regarding manual transmissions, they give you more control over the engine, to wring out that last few horsepower at high revs or short-shift to save gas or reduce wheelspin on slippery surfaces. Also, there is less drivetrain loss, to produce more power at the wheels than an automatic. Plus, it's just fun to click off quick shifts and get some scratch, if there's enough power. The only time it's a drag is in heavy, heavy traffic, creeping ahead a few feet at a time before stopping and waiting for the next gap to form ahead of you. Fortunately, I experience very little of that.
Audi8q, you'd better pick a single-speed bike; wouldn't want you to have to shift manually
NEVER!! And I prefer the auto. You would be giving up far more.
fowler3
Some of us "get it" in cars but in the Mazda6 we don't "get it" because the 6 doesn't have "it". I've driven miatas for over 10 years. I love the snick-snick of the shifter, the impossibly tight handling and the near symbiotic relationship between man and machine. Think and the car responds. Like a BMW. Sorry but the Mazda6 is no BMW or Miata. It's a step above the vanilla world of the Camcord but it's not a car that makes me feel like I've slipped on a comfortable pair of shoes that allow superhuman feats.
If the 6 had the feline grace of a miata or BMW then I'd be totally behind this massive push for a manual. But the car isn't in that league. It's competent and more fun than the competition but it's hardly a roadholding machine with an eager, expressive, ferocious engine clammoring for you to claw your way through one more corner as if the devil himself were on your tail.
Malt, why hit the gas? Every auto i've driven (save for the 745i) creeps on its own. Lift leg, car rolls. Lower leg car stops. That's a lot easier than lift clutch, nudge throttle, engage clutch, engage brake.
:-)
Anyway, my manual days ended with my last stick (a '95 Eagle Talon TSi AWD, hence my username). I was driving down to Chicago for a funeral, so I wasn't in a very cheerful mood in the first place. Well, there was a major backup for miles going into a toll plaza, with traffic creeping foot by foot for almost an hour. After about 1/2 hour of this, my left leg was SO fatigued that it was shaking when I pressed the clutch pedal. That was enough for me, after sticks for over 20 years... time for a "sit and git".
Both cars are a bit too "niche-y" with their emphasis on sport to be volume leaders in their market segments, but I'm sure that the 6 will do very well, and Mazda will be very pleased.
As undeniably intriguing as the 6 is (reveals the Altima as the "sports sedan poseur" that I always thought it was), I've gone through my sports car phase and I'm more in the market for a "poor man's Mercedes" than a "poor man's BMW". And I think the Accord fits that bill a bit better. If I was looking for something more overtly sporty, the 6 would definitely be on the top of my list. Even now it's my second choice. But if even it became the top choice, it would have to be... (running for cover) ... an automatic!
If a "tiptronic" is good enough for Porsche race car drivers I would say its good enough for us who dont like a manual trans but still enjoy really driving a car to its limits.
Salespeople were their usual pushy self but were very accomodating. Got to speak to Wadjit Khan myself (he's infamous in Toronto due to radio commercials) and he even promised to provide a car to drive if my order wasn't ready yet when my lease on my current car expired. They will call me when the cars arrive to arrange a test drive. Have to admit they were very accomodating and if I do decide on the 6 it will be from there.
Also got financing rates:
24 months-4.8%
36 months-4.8%
48 months-5.8%
60 months-6.8%
I believe the leasing rate was 7.25%.
Really? Aren't they SMTs? Another breed of cat entirely.
I think the Mazda6 has a niche too. Younger people, maybe with a young child or two, who want a car with style and performance (a little zoom-zoom) and a decent back seat, but don't want a vehicle that looks bloated and screams "family car." I guess we'll find out the sales figures soon enough.
By the way, on my test drive, the 6i seemed to lack a little gusto on the low end with the auto transmission. So I understand those that favor the manual. But it sounds like the engine "loosens up" during the break-in period, and ends up performing even better.
Most 6's will not be manuals. Most 6's will not have the sport package. In base form the 6 doesn't offer anything over it's competition. As evidenced by the performance numbers, a non-sport package 6 is just an average car with little of the "zoom-zoom" quotient that Mazdaphiles like to bring up. With the sport package it is a handler, no denying that. However it's engine performance is mid-pack. All of the handling would be used up playing catch-up. By the time you hit the curves and are able to catch up there will be another straight way where a handful of sedans will again leave you.
As evidenced by higher-than-ever SUV sales, most people aren't going to notice or care about who is faster in the straights or who is faster in the curves. They will be more concerned with the location of the cupholders, safety features, and interior comfort. The 6 is not a groundbreaker in any of those categories.
With that being said, I appreciate the 6. On my test drive it begged me to weave in and out of traffic. It was in it's element with the revs at about 4500 in 3rd gear slicing between anything in it's path. But that's only fun for so long or I would still have my 00 SI.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that others want what you want.